On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig scribbled:
> On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 12:43, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:32:10PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
> > > 1. IANADD (wannabe yet) but what makes me be a Debian user since slink
> > > is the Debian SC punchline: Free Software. Free as in RMS-free, as in
> > > DFSG-free, as in speech. I don't want, don't need no stinking
> > > AutoCAD.
> > You've got the right to. I've got the right not to support RMS's views.
> > We're not a monastery, we're not monks who swear to obey the same rules and
> > have the same views on the religious matters.
>
> See, though, that's the thing. None of us sweared to agree with RMSs
> views. However, we *did* promise to follow the Social Contract and DFSG,
> *at the very least* in regards to our work on Debian. And now you're
> saying that doing so is "nit-picking".
Yes, it is. Since I didn't break the SC nor the DFSG anywhere. And yet you
are accusing me of doing it. The people responsible for removing the tg
driver broke the SC - why don't you go and lecture them instead?
> I have no problems putting the tg3 driver in non-free *once we can
the driver was not a problem, as near as I can tell. The firmware was
(which, from the point of view of the host system is just data)
> legally distribute it at all*. The same goes for AutoCAD, or
but we can
> who-knows-what that you want to distribute. Fine, whatever. But don't
> complain when non-free finally gets out of main, where it has no
> business being.
Why not put the whole kernel in non-free then? heh, that would be a fun
thing to do :)
As far as I am concerned, the firmware uploaded to a device by a (free)
driver is not software from the host system point of view (and from its
user's point of view), it's just data. Therefore, removing the entire driver
based on the notion that it was non-free was entirely wrong (and it broke
the SC).
marek